GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 19 Aug 2018, 04:32

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 474
Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 30 Jun 2018, 22:54
34
157
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

52% (01:06) correct 48% (01:11) wrong based on 6627 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The Official Guide for GMAT Review, 12th Edition, 2009

Practice Question
Question No.: SC 133
Page: 682

Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

(A) requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect

(B) requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

(C) that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect

(D) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting

(E) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/us/vietnamese-join-us-shrimp-fishermen-in-protest.html

Dean M. Wilkinson, wildlife legislative director for Greenpeace, an environmental group, did not dispute that. ''Each shrimp boat probably doesn't catch more than a few turtles a year,'' he said. ''But when you spread that out across a 17,000-boat fleet, it adds up to big numbers. And we're talking about animals that are on the edge of extinction.''

Environmentalists estimate the total number of Kemp's ridleys at not more than 10,000, including less than 600 nesting females.

Mr. Wilkinson said that the protest over the use of the devices was based largely on misinformation. He said that an earlier design for these turtle excluder devices was bulky and did decimate the shrimp catch, but added, ''There are now 300 boats using TED's and they say it's not hurting them.''

Tee John Mialjevich, a Louisiana shrimper who is a protest leader, said that should a law requiring the use of devices be enacted, he and many other fishermen would disobey it.

The Vietnamese shrimpers, however, said they were not certain they would participate in an illegal protest. ''We don't know yet what we'd do,'' Mr. Huy said. ''We'd have to see. But now we are doing this, which we are allowed to do.''

Originally posted by nevergiveup on 24 Feb 2009, 20:08.
Last edited by hazelnut on 30 Jun 2018, 22:54, edited 2 times in total.
Edited the question.
MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5121
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2012, 11:27
9
5
Concept tested: SV agreement, Meaning.
Difficulty level: High
Illustration:
This question tests a very important aspect of meaning. First, we know
that the main verb in the underlined portion “protect” is wrong as the main
subject “compliance is singular. (Note that protect is not being used as a command
subjunctive in A. “be” is used as the command subjunctive).

According to this logic, A and C are wrong.
Now among B, D and E, “to require” indicates purpose of the law which is not the intended meaning
(please refer to the tip below). So, D and E are incorrect.

Tip: “Laws to require” indicates purpose of the law, but “laws requiring indicates
contents of the law. While this might sound very obvious to natives, but non natives
might have to struggle to get this clearly. Consider the following examples.
1.Arms act is passed to discourage random public shootings. Correct
2.Arms act is passed to levy heavy fines on people who carry unlicensed
firearm. Wrong.

2 is wrong because the arms act is not issued to levy fines. It is issued to prevent
something by levying fines. So the correct option is B.

_________________
SVP
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 1728
Location: New York
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2009, 07:50
31
16
eileen1017 wrote:
Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

A. requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect
B. requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
C. that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect
D. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting
E. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

try to find the main subject and verb here..

Main subject : compliance

Sub- Verb Problem

A,C -- > are out.

D -->out

between B and E

"laws to require" is not idiomatic

B is better.
_________________

Smiling wins more friends than frowning

##### General Discussion
Director
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 818
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2009, 00:21
4
1
compliance is singular
hence A C and D OUT
between B and E
IMO E
compliance to require is Idiomatic

eileen1017 wrote:
Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

A. requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect
B. requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
C. that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect
D. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting
E. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

_________________

http://gmatclub.com/forum/math-polygons-87336.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/competition-for-the-best-gmat-error-log-template-86232.html

Director
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 818
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 May 2009, 09:11
agreed with B

now I have one hypothetical Q

if there is protect(s) instead of protect in option C

which one to choose from? B or C?

B. requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
C. that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect

NOTE: This Q is now @ OG 12#133
_________________

http://gmatclub.com/forum/math-polygons-87336.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/competition-for-the-best-gmat-error-log-template-86232.html

SVP
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 1728
Location: New York
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 May 2009, 10:05
4
1
nitya34 wrote:
agreed with B

now I have one hypothetical Q

if there is protect(s) instead of protect in option C

which one to choose from? B or C?

B. requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
C. that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect

NOTE: This Q is now @ OG 12#133

Still B.

In C : that --> modifies laws.

its like you are introducing suborinate clause:
laws <that> require "turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets" protect

here for verb --> "protect" subject looks like "devices" --> which is gramaticall correct, but logicall incorrect.

If you change the "protect" to protects" is also not going to help in the sentence C.
Now both itis gramatically and Logically incorrect.
_________________

Smiling wins more friends than frowning

Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 232
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 May 2009, 18:55
1
1
Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

A. requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect --> the whole modifier requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp is too wordy to modify for laws, single noun their compliance is not suitable with protect
B. requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting -->the best: requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is a more simple participle phrase modifier for laws than that of A. Besides, is protecting is compliant with their compliance
C. that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect -->same error of A
D. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting -->to + Inf here does not clearly modify for which Noun and betterly idiomatically modifies for another to + inf than a Noun. Also, are protecting is grammatical incorrect with their compliance
E. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting -->same error of D
Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 678
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 17 Jul 2009, 07:03
2
bigoyal wrote:
Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance (singular)with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

A. requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect
B. requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
C. that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect
D. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting
E. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

Note: 'protect' needs the verb form for the subject 'compliance', so should be protects.

A, C, D are gone
D and E are gone for the "to require", which is incorrect.

Only B left

I think that is correct in A, only verb form of protect is incorrect.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Originally posted by sudeep on 17 Jul 2009, 03:24.
Last edited by sudeep on 17 Jul 2009, 07:03, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Feb 2010, 13:49
1
3
gurpreetsingh wrote:
IMO E

a and b not possible....wrongly used verb
between d n e....d not possible, is should be used instead of are

i m not sure about c but it lacks parallelism,

m quite weak in SC, so guys pls throw some input.

We have subject/verb agreement error (A), (C) and (D). Subject of the clause is "their compliance" - so verb should be in singular form; "protect" and "are protecting" are wrong

It leaves us with (B) and (E). Here the major problem is to choose the correct idiom: whether "laws requiring . . " or "laws to require . . ".

I consider "laws requiring" idiomatic and hence prefer (B).
VP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1258
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2010, 12:58
1
1
I also picked (C)...

the question that I have is whether it is "compliance with laws that is protecting sea turtles" or it is "laws protecting sea turtles"

Because if it is compliance with laws that is protecting sea turtles than the OA has to be (B).

Last week local shrimpers held......., saying that.....requiring......protecting - parallel

Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp’s ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

(A) requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect
(B) requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
(C) that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect
(D) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting
(E) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

I would like to get some expert opinion on this.
VP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1258
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2010, 08:32
2
Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

(A) requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect - 'protect' is wrong. 'compliance' protects or is protecting
(B) requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting - saying, requiring, protecting
(C) that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect - 'protect' is wrong. 'compliance' protects or is protecting
(D) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting - 'compliance' is singular. Hence we need 'is protecting'...'are' is incorrect. 'to require' is incorrect here.
(E) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting - 'to require' is incorrect here.
Intern
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
Posts: 12
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2011, 20:37
1
ajit257 wrote:
Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to
take some credit for the resurgence of the rare
Kemp’s ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with
laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on
shrimp nets protect

(A) requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on
shrimp nets protect
(B) requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets
is protecting
(C) that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp
nets protect
(D) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets
are protecting
(E) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets
is protecting

Can someone explain this sc better

"Laws to requiere" is unidiomatic, eliminate (D) and (E)

The noun phrase "their compliace" is the acting subject of the verb "to protect", therefore there must be a subject-verb agreement between them.

(A) Their compliance... protect // Their compliance is singular, protect is in the plural form, eliminate (A)
(B) Their compliance... is protecting // Both subject and verb are in singular form, (B) is the correct choice
(C) Their compliance... protect // Their compliance is singular, protect is in the plural form, eliminate (C)
Manager
Joined: 05 Jan 2011
Posts: 143
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2011, 00:16
1
2
garimavyas wrote:
ajit257 wrote:
Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to
take some credit for the resurgence of the rare
Kemp’s ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with
laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on
shrimp nets protect

(A) requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on
shrimp nets protect
(B) requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets
is protecting

(C) that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp
nets protect
(D) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets
are protecting
(E) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets
is protecting

Can someone explain this sc better

From my notes Hope it will be helpful.
Be sure to use ing form immediately after a legal noun used in objective case
Legal noun are law , ban , order, decree, contract , bill, Deed etc.
example :
GMAT enacted a ban prohibiting takers from posting live questions.

Ban is the object
However, if the legal noun is used as subject of the clause then it might be appropriate to use subjunctive form
The law requires that he perform well in GMAT.
Law is the subject
Let us consider the above problem
Laws is objective case and hence requires Ing form
Intern
Joined: 21 Feb 2012
Posts: 9
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
WE: Information Technology (Retail Banking)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2012, 01:57
1
Baten80 wrote:
Still I do not understand the explanation.

noboru wrote:
noboru wrote:
But the idiom is either:
i) laws requiring X to Y
or
ii) laws requiring that X Y

I dont see how B matches this idiom
Could anybody clarify?
thanks.

nobody is going to clarify this?

Singular subject "compliance" and hence singular verb "is"...
So A, D, C out..

Down to B and E

Here the authot is discussing the content of the laws. While discussing the content of the laws, "laws to require" is unidiomatic. "Laws requring" is correct.
For eg: Laws to discorage people from poaching.................................. [correct as that is the laws intention]
Laws to specify the guidelines to prevent poaching..................[wrong as the law's intention was not to specify but to protect, here "specifying would be correct]

Hope this helped!
MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5121
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2012, 08:06
5
2
"laws to require..." isn't a correct idiom if you're discussing the actual text of the laws themselves. if you were discussing the ultimate purpose of those laws, then this could be idiomatic.
examples:
laws specifying long jail sentences for drunk drivers --> correct (___ing), since that's what the laws actually specify.
laws to specify long jail sentences for drunk drivers --> incorrect (that's not the ultimate purpose of the laws)
laws to discourage drunk driving --> correct (this IS actually the ultimate purpose of the laws)

Credits: Ron Purewal
_________________
Manager
Status: faciendo quod indiget fieri
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 79
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2012, 11:15
2
souvik101990 wrote:
Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

A. requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect sentence fragment
B. requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
C. that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect
D. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting
E. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

The best way to solve is look for subject-verb agreement. complaince should have singular verb thus we have only b and e left. E makes no sense as the use of infinitive is wrong. Thus B must be the answer
MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5121
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2012, 00:46
Concept tested: SV agreement, Meaning.
Difficulty level: High
Illustration:
This question tests a very important aspect of meaning. First, we know
that the main verb in the underlined portion “protect” is wrong as the main
subject “compliance is singular. (Note that protect is not being used as a command
subjunctive in A. “be” is used as the command subjunctive).

According to this logic, A and C are wrong.
Now among B, D and E, “to require” indicates purpose of the law which is not the intended meaning
(please refer to the tip below). So, D and E are incorrect.

Tip: “Laws to require” indicates purpose of the law, but “laws requiring indicates
contents of the law. While this might sound very obvious to natives, but non natives
might have to struggle to get this clearly. Consider the following examples.
1.Arms act is passed to discourage random public shootings. Correct
2.Arms act is passed to levy heavy fines on people who carry unlicensed
firearm. Wrong.

2 is wrong because the arms act is not issued to levy fines. It is issued to prevent
something by levying fines. So the correct option is B.

_________________
Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4526
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2013, 04:12
4
IMO, this is an ‘open and shut’ case involving S-V matching . Limiting just to the underline part, we may see that the subject of the subordinate clause introduced by ‘ that ‘ is compliance, a simple singular noun and therefore its verb should be matching with yet again a singular . You have the singular specification only in B and E; In E, ‘laws to require’ is unidiomatic while ‘laws requiring’ is the custom usage. So E. any hitch?
_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4526
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2013, 04:37
IMO, this is an ‘open and shut’ case involving S-V matching . Limiting just to the underline part, we may see that the subject of the subordinate clause introduced by ‘ that ‘ is compliance, a simple singular noun and therefore its verb should be matching with yet again a singular . You have the singular specification only in B and E; In E, ‘laws to require’ is unidiomatic while ‘laws requiring’ is the custom usage. So E. any hitch?
_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 304
Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2013, 05:56
Hi Daagh,

Totally agree with you on S/V - leaving us with B or E.

However I would say that 'laws requiring' is the correct phrase. I can't say I have any idiom table that refutes your point, but it just sounds awful to my eat the other way, and it's not an idiom I've come accross
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f &nbs [#permalink] 04 May 2013, 05:56

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 39 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.